Oral Answers to Questions

John Hutton: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I can also tell him that as and when the security threat changes in Afghanistan or Iraq, we will not hesitate to meet the requests put to us by our operational commanders for any change or upgrading of the equipment available to them. Our first and principal responsibility is to the health, safety and well-being of our troops in the front line. Nothing that we do will ever get in the way of compromising that fundamental objective.

Nick Harvey: Will the Ministry of Defence follow the example of the United States' armed forces, who now make laser surgery available free of charge to correct the sight defects of all troops going out to the front line? Does he accept not only that wearing spectacles is clearly far from ideal in combat conditions, but that contact lenses can be very uncomfortable in the heat and, particularly, dust of Iraq and Afghanistan, which often gives rise to time off because of eye inflammations and infections? Is he aware that the Metropolitan police are now providing such surgery for key personnel, including bomb disposal experts, who understandably find it quite useful to be able to see properly? Will he establish a central budget in the Ministry, so that this simple and effective surgery can be provided for all our armed services before they go out to the front line?

John Hutton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have received no such request to deploy any UK forces to the Congo, but there are two points that I would want to make to him. First, the situation there requires a reopening of political dialogue between the combatant parties; it is important that that is done quickly, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in the region to try to encourage that. Secondly, there are 18,000 UN forces on the ground in the Congo now, and they can make a difference much more quickly than any deployed force from Europe or anywhere else could, so the priority should be to make sure that UN forces are deployed in such a way as both to protect the civilian population and to advance the humanitarian cause that is so desperately needed there.

Mark Francois: As the ministerial head of the armed forces, the Secretary of State will appreciate the importance of loyalty, as will all his fellow Ministers. On that basis, will he advise those Ministers to use temperate language when referring to our commanders in the field and the great things that they do, as do those who fight for them and for this country?

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers, to examine answers to parliamentary questions? We are well used to the fact that in answers to written questions we do not always receive 100 per cent. of the information requested. The attraction of oral questions, and their great advantage, is that we can be critical of the answers that we receive, particularly when they contain certain omissions. May I therefore ask you to examine the replies given to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and I this afternoon? We sought factual advice on a matter of the gravest importance, but the responses that came from the Front Bench team did not answer our questions. I do not know what description one could apply to those answers, except to say that they were evasive. I had to withdraw my remark, but are we to believe that the word "evasive" is now unparliamentary language?

Ian Pearson: We mean when the reclaim scheme itself is up and running. I think that it is right that there is a period of time between the passing of the Bill and the setting up of the reclaim fund. It seemed to us—we explored this in Committee—that three years was about the right length of time. In actual fact, it will be slightly less than that, because we would have to report in that period.
	Let me turn to the scope of the review. As I have said, it will consider the effectiveness of the legislation. That was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and other Labour Members raised. It will not attempt to review areas outside the legislation, such as the Financial Services Authority's prudential regulation of the reclaims funds, management of money. It is right that FSA regulation is a matter for the FSA. We expect the regulator to make its own assessment of the effectiveness of its regime, too.
	New clause 2 does the same thing, in essence, as new clause 3. We naturally prefer our clause and think that new clause 2 is unnecessary as a result. The Government have listened and we have acted as a result of the representations that were made in Committee, and that is why we commend the new clause to the House.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling new clause 3, which reflects the commitment that he gave in Committee to return to the issue. A feature of the debates in the House and the other place has been that a review process is needed. In Committee, the Government sought to remove the new clause that was inserted into the Bill on Report in the other place. As a consequence of that decision in Committee, we are considering Government new clause 3 and new clause 2, which I tabled.
	It is worth bearing in mind that one reason why we feel that a review is needed is that the scheme is unusual in that the banks and building societies will join it voluntarily, but a statutory legal framework is required to enable balances to be transferred from the banks to the reclaim fund. Clearly, once expenses have been set aside, the amounts transferred to the reclaim fund will be transferred in England to the Big Lottery Fund to be used for the purposes set out in the Bill, and we will discuss those purposes later.
	Given the hybrid nature of the scheme, it is important that a review mechanism is in place. One of the things that characterised the debate in the other place was the need to remove uncertainty about how the scheme will operate day to day, and there is still some uncertainty about how the reclaim fund will function. On that basis, the Lords determined that there should be a triennial review—that was provided for in the new clause introduced in the other place—but I accept the concerns that the Chief Secretary expressed on Second Reading that to commit the Government to a triennial review in perpetuity was perhaps not the right way to go.
	Having reflected on that and the deletions that the Government made in Committee, I came up with new clause 2, which would provide the option to hold more than one review. One of the big differences between the Government's new clause and ours is the option to hold further reviews. The requirement for a review could be terminated if both Houses approved a draft statutory instrument. Once the scheme is up and running and we have been through one review, it might well take another review before we are certain that the scheme is operating properly. That is why the Government are wrong in new clause 3 to create the scope for just one review, whereas we want reviews to be carried out more frequently but not necessarily until the end of time, as under the original new clause.
	Our new clause also differs from the Government's new clause in its provisions for the scope of the review. We would have a broader set of arrangements under new clause 2. The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) talked about the voluntary nature of the scheme. Of course, new clause 3 does not explicitly address that issue, whereas new clause 2 does. We will talk about the voluntary nature of the scheme when we consider new clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), but the scope of my new clause would enable the essential issue of the scheme's voluntary nature to be considered properly.
	People expect the scheme to work, but there are concerns, which we will come to in more detail in considering new clause 1, that the scheme might not work on a voluntary basis, and we want to ensure that that is explicitly addressed in any review. The review provides a mechanism to enable us to signal to the voluntary sector, which is most concerned about the voluntary nature of the scheme, that we take on board its concerns and want to make sure that they are addressed in any subsequent reviews.
	Subsection (4)(b) of new clause 2 would give the Treasury flexibility on what issues it considers. Matters other than
	"the operation, effectiveness and scope of the dormant accounts arrangements"
	could then be considered. For example, one might want to look into the expenses incurred by the reclaim fund, or the range of assets covered by the Bill, which simply covers bank accounts. Subsection (4)(b) could enable the Treasury to broaden the scope of the assets covered, and to consider national savings and investments and other unclaimed assets—perhaps shares, life assurance policies and pensions policies. That was discussed at some length in the other place, but not in Committee. It is an area of activity that we want to keep under review.
	One of the reasons why we need a review is to ensure that there is a spotlight on the operation of the scheme. We are talking about the way in which banks unite dormant accounts with their customers, the processes that they use to do so, and the thoroughness with which they try to identify the customers concerned, to make sure that they do not lose out as a consequence of the scheme. In Committee, we discussed concerns about how well that would work in practice. A review will require the banks and building societies to continue to work hard on that. It will ensure that there is a mechanism for identifying flaws in the system, and will make sure that we have feedback from consumers on how well the scheme works. It will enable us to understand what the administrative burdens on the banks are, and how easy it is for charities to be able to identify dormant accounts to which they might be entitled.
	One of the concerns of charities, which are often the residuary legatees of an estate, is how they could find out whether they had got all the money to which they were entitled. There is a dispute between the charities and the banking sectors about how that would work in practice. Again, a review would enable the issue to be considered, so that we could see how things work in practice. I know from talking to both the Unclaimed Assets Charity Coalition and the British Bankers Association that they have a commitment to working closely together on that, but the fact that there is a review means that they have to work very closely together and reach a pragmatic solution to the problems without, I hope, having to resort to a compulsory scheme.
	The strength of new clause 2 is that it would enable us to hold more than one review. That reflects the fact that we may not get the scheme right straight away. We may need to consider how the scheme operates in its first three years, and we may then say that we need to come back for a second review. However, that second review might be the last review that is needed, if people are happy that the review was properly carried out. That capacity to hold a review beyond the initial period is one of the key distinctions between new clauses 2 and 3. New clause 3 does not go far enough. It does not provide the comfort that I am looking for on the issue of the scheme being kept under regular and frequent review.
	I am being optimistic, of course, but I would much rather that the Government withdrew new clause 3. New clause 2 provides a far more effective sanction and check, and offers far more effective scrutiny of the operation of the reclaim fund, than new clause 3 does. I hope that I have persuaded hon. Members that that is the case and that they will join us in the Division Lobby. However, the Government have moved some distance on this. When the matter was first raised in the other place, the Government were reluctant to accept a triennial review.

Mark Hoban: I would rather have the comfort of knowing that the Government were obliged to have another review, rather than leave it to the whim of Treasury Ministers. That is a much more secure basis on which to have the review than to allow one review and for the matter then to be put back on the shelf and forgotten about. The requirement to have ongoing reviews, with the Government able to determine when those reviews should stop through the statutory instrument process that is in my new clause, would be a far better safeguard for consumers and voluntary groups and would show that the scheme is working effectively.

Mark Hoban: The answer is that I do not know. We may have to have a review every three years until the end of time, although I suspect that that is not the answer. Equally, I am not certain that just once is the answer either. That is why new clause 2 seeks to place the requirement on the statute book for there to be further reviews until a statutory instrument removes that obligation. My new clause would give people greater certainty about the scrutiny of the process than the Government's new clause. We are talking about money that belongs to consumers, to our constituents. I want to ensure that the reclaim process works properly and effectively, and when we are talking about potentially £400 million or £500 million, I am not sure that one review is sufficient. If the scheme is deemed to be working well at the end of one review, the Government could bring forward a statutory instrument to remove the obligation to have any future reviews. My suspicion is that one review will not be enough, and there will be a need for a second review. Therefore, rather than let it be at the discretion of the Treasury, it is important that Parliament should determine that there should be the capacity to have regular reviews of this issue.
	That is the main area where there is a difference between new clauses 2 and 3. I do not think that new clause 3 provides the comfort and assurance that the voluntary sector and consumers are looking for, and that is why it is deficient. New clause 2 offers much greater protection to the voluntary sector and consumers that the scheme will work in both their interests.

Keith Vaz: I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee, but judging from the speeches of my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), it sounded like a particularly civilised Committee stage. I do not know whether I am right or wrong. The hon. Gentleman feels that new clause 2 is slightly better than the Government's, but I am not sure whether he will seek to divide the House. There is consensus on the need to review how the legislation operates, and I welcome the common-sense approach taken by my hon. Friend in tabling the new clause. He seems to have accepted the views put forward in Committee by both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—whom we have yet to hear from, so I hope I do not misquote in advance.
	My only concern is the need for a degree of independence in the process, given the current climate. I understand why this has to be led by the Treasury—this is an idea that comes from the Treasury and Treasury Ministers—but it is important that the Government allow some degree of independence in the review process. We have not had this process before, but I envisage people being able to make written representations to the Treasury within a time scale enabling the review to take place. I am not sure whether that is what the Minister has in mind, or whether he proposes to elucidate further on how the process works, but it is important that we get as much detail as possible on the record, so that once the review process begins, people feel that it is open and transparent and they can put forward their views about how they can best express their concerns over what is happening.
	As the hon. Member for Fareham said, we are dealing with other people's money, so we need to be very careful about how the state claims and uses it, even though it may be for appropriate reasons and for good works. It is going through the lottery agencies and so on, so it must be for good things; it cannot be for bad things. Despite that fact, people need to have the confidence of knowing that there is a proper and transparent approach, but that degree of independence is missing from new clause 3. I do not know whether this was the case but, as the new clause was probably drafted over the weekend as such things are when Report approaches, perhaps there was no chance to think about the issue more carefully. However, when the Minister replies, perhaps he will give us that degree of assurance—that that independent element will appear somewhere in the process.
	I recognise that other Members have followed the Bill through its various stages and are therefore experts on these matters, bit I should like to ask the Minister whether the proposal will also cover dormant accounts from banks that are in liquidation. He will know that the Bank of Credit and Commerce International has been in liquidation for 17 years. It is an ongoing process, and there is clearly enough money to cover all the money that is left in that bank. Might we apply the legislation to the people whose bank accounts were, in effect, frozen on 5 July 1991 and, if we add the Government's proposed 15-year period to the 17 years of liquidation, have had dormant accounts for 32 years? Has he considered the issue of a bank that has been insolvent or in liquidation for the huge length of time that BCCI has? There are still bank accounts that were dormant on 5 July 1991 and, presumably, still sit in BCCI in liquidation. The money is still there, and nobody has done anything with it. Has the Minister looked at that? When he replies, will he please reassure those people who still wish to claim those accounts that something is being done as the Bill reaches its final stages?

Jeremy Browne: It feels like as though we are dancing on the head of a pin when there are rather more pressing matters facing the banking sector. Nevertheless, that is perhaps inevitable at this stage of the legislative process. I welcome the fact that at all times, in the other place and in Committee in this House, the Bill has broadly commanded cross-party support. That is reflected in the Government's new clause 3, which I welcome. I am grateful to the Government for listening to the representations that were made in Committee and for seeking, to some extent, to accommodate the concerns that Members from all parties expressed.
	With this legislation, there is, after all, a sense that we are entering slightly different territory, and, even though the headline concept is fairly straightforward, we are not certain about how some aspects of it will pan out in practice: whether 15 years, for example, will be an appropriate period for a bank account to be deemed to be dormant; the nature of the reclaim for people who want access to their funds after that 15-year period has elapsed; the mechanisms for distributing the money and the causes that it goes to; and many other features of the legislation besides. So my colleagues and I have always taken the view that some sort of review mechanism would be healthy and in the interests of the Government. The amendments, both in the other place and in this House, were not about Opposition point-scoring to try to put that process into the legislation; they were well-intentioned, and I am pleased that the Minister and his colleagues have sought to accommodate them and seen the wisdom in trying to take that approach.
	My party's view in both Houses has always been that the review should be regular, although in Committee I was, like the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), happy to concede that having a review every three years for—as he put it—"the rest of time" might be somewhat excessive. No doubt, over a period the legislation would settle down and people would feel confident with how it worked in practice.
	Our concern now—as I said, we are dancing on the head of a pin somewhat—is whether one review is sufficient or whether subsequent reviews may be required. If they are, should that be expressed in the Bill or should the Government freely come to a conclusion about the issue after they have conducted one review? The margins of difference between us are pretty small, but in so far as the issue matters, I would prefer the legislation to express a mechanism for further reviews.
	Having said that, I should say that new clause 2 is rather loosely worded. I can see why Opposition parties would wish to support the new clause because of the broad principle of having more than one review. The Government, however, may be anxious, with their majority, about putting into legislation provision for carrying out reviews "From time to time", as new clause 2 states. That seems extremely loose; it could mean anything—every 50 years, I suppose. On that basis, the Government could easily either bring forward reviews or completely ignore new clause 2, even if it were passed by the House today, on the basis that having a review a century from now would not be sufficiently frequent or urgent.
	In Committee, I made a concession when I had tabled a similar amendment that would have required the Government to consult "those affected" by the legislation. I was criticised by other Committee members, and I conceded that their criticism had some legitimacy and that my wording was too loose for a consultative process. However, new clause 2 would require the Government to consult
	"those persons who it considers to have relevant knowledge".
	That strikes me as entirely open to interpretation by those undertaking the review. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who said that if the Government are reviewing their own legislation and are required to consult only those it regards as having "relevant" knowledge, they will pretty much have a free hand to consult whomever they see fit to consult—they may choose to consult only those who are likely to give the answer that they wish to hear.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. As he pointed out, this is a case of angels dancing on the head of a pin, given that both new clauses rely on the discretion of the Treasury. New clause 2 says that reports should be prepared "From time to time"; as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that is an incredibly elastic phrase. Under new clause 3, there is no prevention of more than one report, although there is no provision that there should be more than one. New clause 2 adverts slightly to there being more than one report, but "From time to time" is so elastic that both clauses would leave the issue to the discretion of the Treasury.

Jeremy Browne: This conversation is getting more and more arcane. I conceded in my opening remarks that although on the face of it the Bill is quite straightforward, it has a few unusual features. We are navigating waters that have not previously been explored in this country, although similar schemes exist in other countries. There is therefore merit in having a review. Having said that, I think there is merit in periodically reviewing every piece of legislation that the Government introduce to see whether it has the intended effect.
	In new clause 3, the Government make the useful concession of allowing a formal review. I do not want to be mean-spirited, because they have moved on this: they have listened to the concerns that have been expressed and, in a healthily non-partisan manner, sought within the bounds of what they regard as practicable to bring forward proposals that can command broad support. The Opposition parties may wish the Government to commit to further reviews, which would be desirable, but I can see why they would be reluctant to support the rather loosely drafted new clause 2.

Tom Levitt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), from whom I learned—I had not realised this before—that the Liberal Democrat party is in a position to make concessions. However, I will put that aside for the moment.
	As chair of the all-party group on the community and voluntary sector, and one to whom the sector has been talking loudly on this issue, I very much appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Minister has tabled this amendment, as he promised that he would following our debate in Committee. He has been as good as his word. I will, if necessary, follow him into the Lobby to support new clause 3.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and I were part of the awkward squad on the Back Benches in Committee— [ Interruption. ] I hear gasps of astonishment from my colleagues. As such, let me make one or two other statements about the new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is right about the intention to pursue a voluntary scheme. I am much consoled and helped by his saying in response to my intervention that legislation to address a failing scheme could well be considered at a later date. I hope that that is not necessary. Although he did not say so, I suspect that he is of the opinion that inserting too many get-out clauses may undermine the voluntary scheme, and we certainly do not want to do that. We will have a voluntary scheme as a result of the legislation, and we all want it to work in the interests of the beneficiaries, and of the good standing of the banks.
	It is important to have a review. My hon. Friend the Minister was right to vote against the amendment passed in another place when it came to Committee, and I believe that new clause 3 is an important clarification of the position. It is a far superior review process to the one in the Bill when it first came to Committee. It does not rule out a subsequent review; it cannot do so. All Ministers must, at any time, be able to revisit previous legislation to check that it is working. Those of us who wanted an assurance about voluntary, as opposed to compulsory, status may be superficially attracted to new clause 2(5)(b), which suggests legislation might be introduced. In fact, that provision is meaningless. If legislation is necessary to put right something that is wrong with the scheme following the review, new clause 2 would not provide a quicker or more efficient way of achieving it; it simply says that it might be necessary. The Minister has conceded that it might, at some point, be necessary. New clause 2 is superficial and has been tabled for the sake of it, to allow a debate to take place.
	Taking all those points into account, and in the spirit of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) described as the civilised way we dealt with matters in Committee, and in the spirit of the brevity of those proceedings, I support new clause 3.

Martyn Jones: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but, as he did not serve on the Committee, perhaps he may be under a misapprehension. People's money will not be taken—the money will always be there. People who lose contact with their funds will always have access to them—that is one of my reasons for pressing for the measure for the past 10 years. People can get their money. We are discussing using the money that cannot be given back to people for good causes rather than for profits for the banks.

Rob Marris: I stand corrected on the nuances—the measure would not take people's money for evermore. However, it provides for taking people's money, and they would have to go through a procedure to get it back if they resurfaced after, for example, 20 years.
	On Treasury discretion, new clauses 3 and 2 are effectively no different. I prefer new clause 3 because of the factors that it covers. On the review, new clause 3(2) contrasts with new clause 2(4). The subject matter that would be reviewed under Government new clause 3 is rather greater and more intensive than that envisaged under the Opposition's new clause 2.
	Similarly, when one contrasts new clause 3(3) with new clause 2(6), the consultation process envisaged in new clause 3 is rather better than that in new clause 2.
	For those reasons, if new clause 3 is pushed to a Division, I will support the Government.

Ian Pearson: We have had an interesting debate, which shows that there is not a great deal of difference about substance between all hon. Members who contributed. We all believe that a review is necessary, and most of the debate has centred around whether more than one review should take place and whether provision for that should be made in the Bill.
	The Government's position is that a comprehensive review in three years is sufficient to establish whether the scheme is operating effectively and that further requirements for reviews constitute a heavy-handed approach. I understand the view of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who speaks for the Opposition, that new clause 2 specifies further reviews "from time to time", the wording of which is fairly loose, as we have discussed. I also appreciate that new clause 2 includes a power to remove subsequent reviews through the affirmative resolution procedure. However, we do not believe that we need that amount of stricture. If the review demanded further consideration by Government, it could—and would—be conducted in the way in which my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt) clearly outlined. If a review revealed that we needed to review the scheme still further because sufficient concerns remained, we would do that. Not putting something in statute does not mean that it will not happen.

Ian Pearson: Let me assure the House that we would commit to keeping the issue very much on the Government's agenda, but that would also depend on what the first review concluded. If the first review concluded that the scheme was working well—that there was extensive voluntary participation, that the reclaim fund was operating efficiently and that money was going to the Big Lottery Fund and being spent in exactly the right way—it might also conclude that no further action was necessary other than to keep a watching brief. To commit ourselves to hold a review "from time to time" would not be a good legislative route to pursue.
	I should like to pick up some of the points that hon. Members have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made the point in his speech and in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) that we are talking about customers' money. A great deal of time and effort has already been spent on reuniting customers with their money. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West talked about the procedures that people will need to go through to reclaim their dormant account money, so I ought to explain that doing so should be very simple. It should require no more than to take two forms of identification to one's bank or building society and say, "I'd forgotten that I had this money in my account. This is me—please give me the money." All the wiring that will support subsequent claims on the reclaim fund to reimburse the bank or building society will not be seen by the customer, who will just have to undergo a simple transactional exercise, just as people go their bank or building society and withdraw money that is rightfully theirs.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made two important points. First, he asked whether there would be an independent element in the review and noted that the clause as drafted requires that the Treasury carry it out. As we have made clear, the review will be undertaken in consultation with industry, consumer groups and the voluntary sector. We see the process as a consensual one. We do not specify in the Bill whether a Treasury official would carry out the review or whether we want to commission independent consultants to do it, but that is a decision that we would want to make at a later stage.

Ian Pearson: My understanding is that the latter would obtain. There is also the issue of what would happen if money was transferred into the scheme and a bank subsequently becoming insolvent. In those circumstances, I think that the customer would still be able to reclaim their money, and that would be the right thing to do.

Jeremy Browne: I do not know; there are so many wise Members in this House, of all different parties, that the list could include hundreds. I can speculate only that those who have not signed have not been sufficiently attentive to notice that the new clause was there to be signed, because anyone who had had the opportunity to sign it would have taken that chance.
	The new clause was signed by not only the widely respected deputy leader of my party, but by hon. Members from all three main parties in this House, including the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire. The Committee's report on unclaimed assets recommended that a reserve power to create a register be included in the Government's proposals. The right hon. Gentleman was also primary sponsor of early-day motion 1581, which I, too, have signed, along with other hon. and right hon. Members. It calls for a reserve power to create a register if reunification efforts prove insufficient. That is the nub of the matter, and I shall address it in due course.
	The new clause was also signed by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), chairman of the all-party group on cancer, and by two Conservatives, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who I believe used to be a vice-chairman of that group, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who was a member of our Public Bill Committee. It was also signed by the Member who has perhaps devoted more time and effort to considering dormant bank accounts than any other—the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones). He, too, has expressed support for a reserve power for a register, and did so on Second Reading and in Committee.
	In summary, unlike the other new clauses that we have discussed this afternoon, this measure is supported by Members from all three parties; it is doubtless supported by Members from other parties too. That is because the intentions behind it are entirely laudable, and it would help the House if I were to provide a small amount of background. We are concerned with the ability of charities to access legacies, which are a vital strand of the income of charitable organisations. The Building Societies Association and the British Bankers Association have estimated that up to £500 million is sitting in dormant accounts, but that estimate is disputed—there are a range of views as to how much money will be realised as and when this Bill becomes law. Some think that the sum may be as high as £5 billion, so we are talking about a large sum.
	It is worth setting out a few facts for the House to give context on unclaimed funds and the impact on the charitable sector. One in seven people leave legacy gifts to charity, and those average 5 per cent. of their total estate. The Institute of Fundraising estimates that legacies accounted for 36.3 per cent.—more than a third—of the voluntary income received by charities in 2007, and that that totalled £1.6 billion.
	Let us consider the impact that those legacies have on specific well-known charities. Some 46 per cent., or almost half, of the British Heart Foundation's voluntary income came from legacies last year, as did 33 per cent. of Cancer Research UK's voluntary income, totalling £135 million. This is not controversial; hon. Members on both sides of the House understand how important it is for the charitable sector that legacies can be realised, because they form a vital part of their funding. This country has an extremely healthy charitable sector. Many charities in Europe caring and catering for people afflicted by illness or other circumstances look enviously at the British charitable sector, because it raises more money, and employs and deploys more people, for charitable causes than those in many comparable countries. We are very well served by our charitable sector, and it is important to ensure that it can access the funds that it requires and that were intended for it by people in their legacies.
	In the view of many in the charitable sector, charities cannot adequately locate legacies left in dormant accounts. In that regard, everyone welcomes the industry's main initiative: the website www.mylostaccount.org.uk, which allows any person or charity to search online using basic information. That facility has been useful to many people, but nevertheless a feeling remains that it is not sufficient and that some charities will be unable to access the money intended for them.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about where the emphasis should lie. If the new clause does not cater for that point sufficiently, it is because it was inspired by representations from many charities keen for progress to be made.
	In Committee, I tabled an amendment to create a reserve power allowing a register of dormant accounts to be set up in the triennial report, if the scheme's reuniting practices were found to be inadequate, but the Government were reluctant to accept that reporting requirement. However, Government new clause 3 introduced a mechanism allowing for a one-off report after three years to consider how the legislation has worked out. New clause 1 is particularly appropriate given the adoption of Government new clause 3. If the report were to find that the ability to reunite charitable organisations with legacies intended for them is inadequate, new clause 1 would be all the more valuable.
	In the Lords, an amendment to introduce a reserve power to create a register was narrowly defeated—this takes me to the crux of new clause 1. It had been argued that it was desirable for individuals to be able to access a register to find moneys that were rightfully theirs. Concerns were expressed, although representations were made that those concerns were unfounded, that a database that was drawn so widely and accessed by a large number of people might cause problems. New clause 1 has been drawn much more tightly to take account of those concerns.
	New clause 1 seeks to give the Treasury the reserved power to create a register to allow registered charities—not any organisation, but registered charities—to search for legacies left to them. Under proposed subsection (2)(b), the register would be regulated by a registrar. Under subsection (2)(c), the search would be conducted across all dormant accounts that were registered. Subsection (2)(d) would provide the Treasury with flexibility to include other stipulations as it saw fit, and require it to consult those who were likely to be affected.
	That is the essence of the proposal. I know that some concerns have been expressed, not least by the Conservative party, about whether a register would infringe people's rightful expectations about data protection. I take those concerns seriously, because I share them. However, the advice that I have heard—other Members have received these representations, too—is that the new clause tabled by me and supported by Members of all three main parties would, as worded, not cause undue concern in that regard. The charities would have limited access to information and data that they would find useful in trying to access the legacy money that I described, which is essential to them, but people's rightful expectations of privacy would not be infringed. Crucially—this is, in a way, a concession made by me and by others who share my view—that access would be restricted to registered charities only.
	Some people have particular concerns. The United States, Canada and Ireland, as I understand it, all have registers as part of their dormant bank accounts initiatives, which have not been found to be susceptible to fraud and have not given rise to the type of concerns that some might have about the proposal in new clause 1. As to experience from abroad, the concession that has been made in terms of limiting charities' access to the register is an attempt to find the common ground that has typified most of our deliberations on the Bill.
	I hope that for all those reasons, as well our collective desire for charities not only to raise as much money as possible but to raise money that was intended for them and for the causes that they wish to pursue, the new clause will be looked on sympathetically by Members from both sides of the House, and might even become part of the legislation.

Charles Walker: If I have any concern about the Bill, this is one of the areas that I am most concerned about. We recognise in the House that charities derive a significant amount of their income from legacies, and the fact is that the Bill does not make adequate provision to ensure that that is adequately reflected when the money in dormant building society accounts is divvied up.
	I have added my name to the new clause almost in a probing way, because I would very much like the Government accept that part of the large sums of money that we are talking about could make a significant difference to the funding of charities in this country. If 5 per cent. of legacies goes to charities, it would not be unreasonable for the Bill to reflect that by having 5 per cent. of the dormant bank and building society accounts fund set aside to be distributed to the charitable sector. I appreciate that, in going to the Big Lottery Fund, the money will go to good causes or to a good cause, but that is a very specific allocation.
	I have listened to the arguments of a coalition of charities, and I am very sensitive and alive to them. In particular, the money that will be set aside from dormant bank and building society accounts could make a huge difference to less well-funded charities. Many popular charities do not struggle to secure funding and charitable giving, but a number of very worthy charities find it very difficult to raise funds, because they do not have the infrastructure or do not strike the same chord with the public.
	I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going through a range of the charities that struggle for funds, but I point out that mental health charities, for example, find it very difficult to raise funds. I go to many sporting events and see sporting teams wearing pink for breast cancer, which is an honourable and noble thing to do, but I see very few sporting teams wearing something to help to raise funds for the mentally ill, and I should like more of them to do so.
	If I could prevail on the Government, I would say, "Please look at this." We are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. Would it not be possible to go away, rethink and ask officials, "Couldn't we set aside 5 per cent. of the fund in a mechanism that would enable it to be distributed to the charitable sector?" That would find favour among many charities and among many of our constituents as well.

Rob Marris: I support the concept of a register for some of the reasons set out. We could be doing many things to tighten data protection. For example, Wolverhampton city council has no port for a memory stick on many of its computers, so there is no chance of a memory stick with information on it going missing, because a memory stick cannot be plugged in.
	We are focusing on charities in the new clause. Although that focus is extremely worth while—I very much support what has been said about charities—it is too narrow, because individuals who should inherit money from dormant bank accounts could not do so, because of the regulations envisaged in the new clause. Charities could do so, as one class of beneficiary, but not individuals. That takes us on to a little of background on what happens on someone's death, which some hon. Members might not be aware of—I am; I was a solicitor before I entered the House.
	For shorthand, I will refer to executors, rather than referring in the legal way to executors and executrices and administrators and administratices, because that confuses people. In everyday terms, when someone dies without a will, administrators are appointed to deal with the estate. If someone dies with a will, executors are appointed. However, there will be a grant of letters of administration on intestacy or a grant of probate if someone dies with a valid will. However, for the sake of argument, let us simplify and say that those who deal with the estate are executors.
	The executors will distribute the money of which they are aware in accordance with the deceased's wishes if there is a will and in accordance with the law of intestacy if there is no will. If someone dies intestate and there is no beneficiary at all, the estate goes bona vacantia, which is referred to in the explanatory notes and means that the Crown gets it.
	If someone dies with a will and leaves a bequest to a charity in it, the charity should get the money. However, there may not be enough money in the estate, or it may be that the charity is the residuary beneficiary. For example, the will might say, "I leave all my furniture to my kids, and everything else I've got goes to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals." The RSPCA is then the residuary beneficiary, and gets everything that is left over after the furniture has gone to the kids. That residuary sum will be higher if there is a dormant bank account that can be brought back in to swell the estate. The RSPCA, in the example that I gave, would then get more.
	The difficulty with the wording of new clause 1, worthy as it is, is that it focuses only on charities. Let us say that someone dies and leaves several bequests in their will, which is quite common; often they leave a specific bequest of a named sum to a charity, and the residuary beneficiaries are their children. In that situation, the residuary beneficiaries may not get all that they are entitled to if they did not know that their deceased parent had a dormant bank account that had been swept into the reclaim fund, but that could come out of it if they ever found out about the account.

Mark Hoban: New clause 1 clearly shows that there has been some movement on the issue since we debated it in Committee. I am not entirely clear from the speech given by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) how he expects the register to work in practice. For example, it is not clear whether we are talking about a voluntary register, which would go with the grain of the scheme envisaged in the Bill, or a compulsory register, to which banks and building societies would have to sign up. That is an important distinction to draw. As I mentioned, the scheme in the Bill is voluntary; banks and building societies have the right to opt into it. All the arrangements are predicated on that basis. I am not entirely clear from the hon. Gentleman whether he will require banks and building societies to put this information on a register and therefore convert the scheme from a voluntary to a compulsory scheme. He may wish to intervene to clarify that.
	I think that we all accept that charities want to maximise their income from legacies, and there is a set of circumstances in which they are not in a position to do so because they do not have the right to access the "mylostaccount" website, which is the portal that has been used to allow individuals to search for dormant bank, building society and NS&I accounts. It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman expects that voluntary scheme to be superseded by his register. He did not talk about the interaction between the two processes and whether for charities the compulsory or voluntary register would supersede that scheme. He touched on my objection in Committee about the confidentiality of information, although I do not think that he has gone as far as I would have liked him to have done to reassure us. Just because it is a registered charity that has access to the register, that does not necessarily act as a tight limit on the number of people who could access that information. We need to be careful that we do not provide a window that people will use to commit fraud or to go on fishing expeditions for personal information. I do not think that the assurances that he gave dealt with that point.
	The other important aspect that the hon. Gentleman did not touch upon is how much this will cost. We are being asked to establish a register for charities, which could be an expensive process. It would require banks to put data away to enable them to transfer it across to the register and there would be a registrar who would look after the register, which would have to be updated regularly and made available. There would be systems costs, input costs and data protection costs. One of the merits of the current scheme is that it should be a relatively lower cost operation than a compulsory scheme, because every extra pound that is spent on administration is a pound less for the good causes specified later in the Bill. I am concerned that we have had no explanation of the cost of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman may return to that in his winding up; I do not know. Perhaps his opening speech was just a warm up for his conclusion.
	The question is whether this is a proportionate remedy to the potential loss that charities face. Part of the problem is that we do not have a sense of how much money is at stake here for charities. No hon. Member would want to see a disproportionate solution being proposed to the concern that charities will lose out as a consequence of the Bill because they will not have the power to search for bequests.
	It is helpful to note that the British Bankers Association has offered to work with the charities to try to identify the scale of the problem. That would enable the charitable sector, the banks and the Treasury to determine whether there is a significant problem that needs to be tackled. That could be picked up formally through new clause 3(1)(b) which states that the Treasury can review
	"the effectiveness of the efforts made by financial institutions to secure that those entitled to the money in inactive accounts are made aware of the fact."
	It would fall within that new clause to check whether charities are losing out and by how much, and therefore to determine what action can be taken to improve the flow of money through to charities. There is a strong argument that the charitable sector may lose access to funds as a consequence of the arrangements in the Bill, but I have yet to be convinced that the hon. Gentleman's proposed mechanism would be a proportionate response to the problem, and that it would contain adequate safeguards. There is a risk that, actually, it would undermine the voluntary nature of the Bill, and that the cost of operating the scheme would be such that it would reduce the amount of money to be made available to other good causes.

Ian Pearson: New clause 1 proposes giving the Government a power to establish a central register and to put in place specific arrangements regarding charitable legacies. The Government share several of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). I was disappointed that he did not want to accept new clause 3, but it seems that, on new clause 1, we are thinking along similar lines. We debated the issues at length in Committee in the light of a similar amendment, and I am happy to set out both our strong belief in the importance of effective reuniting arrangements and our commitment to ensuring a scheme that is effective, transparent and, above all, fair for consumers, and our legitimate concerns about the implications of the new clause for consumers and for human rights.
	I recognise the position of some representatives of the charitable sector, including the Unclaimed Assets Charity Coalition, and I welcome its contribution to the debate and pay tribute to its valuable work. All parts of the House share a commitment to ensuring that charities get money that is rightfully theirs. Naturally, I welcome all constructive suggestions about how industry reuniting arrangements might be further improved, and I should welcome discussions between the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association and the charities to see what more can be done.

Ian Pearson: I heard the hon. Gentleman make that suggestion in his contribution, and if he feels that strongly about it, I am surprised that he has not tabled an appropriate amendment for discussion today.
	Naturally, we welcome all constructive suggestions about how relationships can be improved, and my understanding of the charities movement is that, yes, it has some concerns. It wants to continue putting pressure on banks and building societies to do all they can to ensure that there are simpler arrangements so that the movement can get its rightful money. However, I must stress that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) pointed out, the issue is not just about charities. The key question is, how do we ensure that the rightful owners of dormant accounts are reunited with their property so that only genuinely dormant accounts are transferred to the scheme? The proposals are right and fair for customers, because, after all, it is their money. Whether it involves the estates of deceased persons, or individuals who have simply forgotten where they have put their money, both have similar rights, and we must continue to focus on reuniting them with the property that is rightly theirs.
	The Government welcome the commitment of the banks and building societies to a major reunification exercise in the run-up to the scheme becoming operational, and, in particular, we welcome the launch by the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association and National Savings & Investments of the "mylostaccount" website in January, to which Members have already referred. Almost 190,000 people have already used this free cross-industry service to reunite themselves with tens of millions of pounds. We welcome the commitment of individual institutions to institution-by-institution efforts to reunite. We have seen the fruits of that through high-profile efforts by HBOS, Lloyds TSB, HSBC and Nationwide.
	My strong advice to individuals who think that they might have a bank, building society or national savings account or premium bonds of which they have lost track is that they should go to www.mylostaccount.org.uk. The service is free; people tap in their basic information—name and current and previous addresses—and can make multiple searches for free. If people are owed money from such accounts, they can find where it is and get access to it. They need not go to commercial fee-charging services for the privilege; the process is simple.
	The "mylostaccount" website already allows executors, nominated representatives and even beneficiaries of wills to conduct searches for lost accounts. Executors can ensure that anyone or any institution, including charities, due legacy income from moneys in dormant accounts receives their entitlement. I would expect an executor, as part of the reasonable steps that they should take, to go to the minimal trouble of visiting the website, feeding in basic information and checking whether any money of which they are not aware is due to the relevant heirs and successors. That would be an eminently reasonable and proportionate step for executors to take.
	The current arrangements are working and will continue to be effective in allowing people to be reunited with their money. We will, of course, keep the matter under review; the review clause on which we voted a few moments ago will include a review of the effectiveness of reuniting arrangements, so the issue will not be forgotten. However, I should like to repeat the concerns that I set out in Committee about a register and the power to introduce one. First, it is important to recognise that financial institutions must respect the confidentiality of the information that they hold about their customers. Transferring such information to a central source would in effect require banks to breach that confidentiality; it is difficult to see how that would be compatible with the framework of current UK law on confidential information and data protection, and it would raise human rights issues. I am not saying that it would be impossible to do but, as the hon. Member for Fareham suggested, it would raise significant issues about the overall design of the scheme. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) said that other countries had similar schemes, but obviously he is aware that other countries have compulsory schemes, whereas we are proposing a voluntary scheme.

Jeremy Browne: I wish to follow up on a few points from our short debate on new clause 1.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) asked who were the magnificent seven who put their names to the new clause. I will run through them: my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), and the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). I have obviously missed out myself as an important signatory, but I notice from the amendment paper that it is in fact the hon. Member for Bromsgrove who is missing. We are both no doubt pleased to have our names attached, but that is a matter for the record, and I will turn to the more substantial points.
	Genuine and reasonable concerns have been raised about the confidentiality of the information about account holders. Charities would search against the register using their name, date of birth and last known address, so any match would allow them only to contact the financial institution to undertake a claim in the normal fashion. They would not be giving out reams of information about the bank account holder in the way that some Members fear. I reiterate that this has been tried and tested in other countries, where those fears have not been borne out.
	I was asked whether the scheme would be voluntary. I suppose that, going with the grain of the Bill as whole, that is likely to be the case. However, it would, to some extent, be voluntary in name only, because most of the institutions, with regard to the Bill as a whole, feel a degree of compulsion to be involved with the scheme, even if it is a moral rather than a legislative compulsion. I remind Members that the first line of the new clause says:
	"The Treasury may make regulations as are necessary for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a register of dormant account funds".
	It would not compel anybody to do anything, but it would provide that facility.

Jeremy Browne: That is an interesting alternative suggestion. Although it is not contained in the new clause, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern about trying to ensure that the money intended for charities reaches them to the maximum degree.
	I was asked whether this provision would be additional and complementary to the website or would replace it. I think that it could and should be complementary.
	Points were raised about the cost. There would be a cost but, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne implied, there is currently a cost to the charities, who fear that they may not be united with money that was intended for them. Of course there would be an administrative burden if one were to set up a register, but one would hope that the total amount of money realised for charities would exceed the cost of administering the scheme many times over.

Rob Marris: Let me reverse the position of amendment No. 10 for a moment. If clause 5(4) were not in the Bill—precisely what the amendment is designed to achieve—and I moved an amendment to put the same wording of subsection (4) back into the Bill, I suspect that the Government would respond by arguing that it was unnecessary and there was no need for it —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) is looking puzzled; I am saying that if I attempted to insert that wording into the Bill, the Government would probably say, "We don't need it; it is redundant", as they often do in respect of amendments coming from both sides of the House. We are told that we do not understand and that there is no need for the amending provision.
	If I ask what clause 5(4) does—if, as one anticipates, the Government resist amendment No. 10, which would remove that provision—the answer is that it gives the Treasury a power that I suspect it needs, because I cannot see anywhere else in the Bill where it defines who the members of the reclaim fund are. It will be a company, which has to have members—the shareholders—although I know that the Bill provides that they are not going to get dividends. It seems to me that clause 5(4) is needed on account of this lacuna, whereby the members of "the" or "a" reclaim fund are not specified.
	I appreciate from paragraph 51 of the explanatory notes that the
	"British Bankers' Association and Building Societies Association have committed to lead on the selection or establishment of a body to act as a reclaim fund."
	However, when the Minister responds to the blandishments of the official Opposition on amendment No. 10, I hope that he can elucidate on that and clarify whether I am right that clause 5(4) is necessary because the Bill does not specify who the members of a reclaim fund should be. It would be for the members of that fund to carry out enforcement if the directors failed to give effect to specified objects or to comply with the provisions in the memorandum of association and articles of the fund. Usually, one would expect the members of the company— with a limited guarantee or otherwise—to be responsible for enforcement. It is for them to say, "You are not complying with the rules of our organisation or company. As directors, you should be, so if necessary, we will take you to court to get you to comply". If one does not know who the members are, however, one cannot say that the watchdog power exists, which is why subsection (4) is necessary.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention, but taken as a whole—I name no individuals—the track record of British bankers over the past two years in running a tight ship within their organisations has not exactly been a stellar one. According to the  Hansard excerpt which the hon. Gentleman helpfully read out, the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association will set up one or more reclaim funds that could—I stress the word "could"—become a cosy little club that does not regulate itself properly, does not comply with its memorandum or articles of association and does not comply with the objects of the reclaim company. In that case, clause 5(4) is therefore necessary and amendment No. 10 should be rejected.
	If my analysis is correct, it begs the question why the legislation does not offer a little more clarity on who the members of a reclaim fund company should be. It also suggests that the Treasury should, in some guise, be a member—not the dominant member, but a member—of a reclaim fund so that in its role as a member, it could enforce compliance with the memorandum and articles of association were the directors to fail to comply.
	I hope that the Minister will set my heart at rest as to why clause 5(4) is in the Bill and explain that, although it should not be part of the Bill, its inclusion is necessary because of the lacuna in respect of lack of enforcement that follows from our not knowing who the members are.

Charles Walker: This is an interesting set of amendments. When the Bill becomes an Act, it will result in the establishment of a reclaim fund, which will be a limited company. If it is to carry the support of the public, the operation of the scheme must be transparent and its decisions, as well those participating in the scheme, must be subject to scrutiny. We will look into that in three years' time, but what we will really want to know is which banks and building societies are foot dragging and are choosing not to participate. If we know who they are and we can benchmark them against those who are participating, we could bring them before the Treasury Select Committee, for example, which could then ask them directly why they are not participating in the voluntary scheme.
	It may be that banks and building societies have very good reasons not to participate, but equally it may be that they frankly cannot be bothered. Only through public scrutiny and public opprobrium can we bring them to the table. I say "only", but there is, of course, another mechanism of statutory regulation. In that case, after three years, the House says, "You organisations are not pulling your weight. We have tried the voluntary route, but we are now going to go down the compulsory route—and you will participate in this scheme". That would be a great shame, but it could happen.
	As for the Treasury's direction of this limited company—the Treasury's right to direct it—it would be helpful if the Minister put some scenarios before the House to explain why or when the Treasury might wish to exercise such power. After all, having served in Committee, I believe I am right to believe that the Bill allows for the establishment of a limited company that would be regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Only extreme circumstances would allow the Treasury to start to interfere in day-to-day operations, but we know that such circumstances arise, as we have seen recently in the banking sector—I sincerely hope that this rather small organisation does not experience the same type of crisis in two or three years' time.
	I listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and I heard his concerns, so I think it would be helpful if the Minister brought us in on some of the conversations he has had with his civil servants on what circumstances might trigger a direct intervention from the Treasury. If nothing else, that would put our minds at rest.

Ian Pearson: It is my understanding that the normal parliamentary use of the word "sanction" is such that it can include a range of measures; there might be penalties and fines, but others might also apply. Perhaps I am using the word loosely in this circumstance, but the direction in question is clearly a power to direct a company to conform with its articles of association under the law.
	Amendment No. 11 would add the requirement for the reclaim fund to include in its articles an obligation to publish the names of all banks and building societies on the FSA register in respect of which no moneys were transferred. As I said in Committee, I have reflected carefully on the debate about having a requirement to publish a list of non-participants, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the point again today. We remain committed to doing everything we can to ensure that the scheme is transparent. Our scheme already places comprehensive requirements on the reclaim fund to publish information about how the scheme is working, including the following: a list of participating institutions; the amount of money that is going to transferred into the scheme, by individual institution; the amount of money reclaimed by account holders post-transfer, by individual institution; and the amounts transferred to the Big Lottery Fund. The Government's amendments in Committee also require the reclaim fund to publish its annual accounts and company reports as soon as possible after the end of the financial year.
	I hope that that demonstrates that we have listened to the debate and are seeking to reinforce the transparency of the scheme where it is possible to do so, but I remain of the view that we should not go further and require the reclaim fund to publish a list of non-participants drawn from the FSA online register of all FSA-authorised institutions. On one level, that would be unnecessary. The names of all banks and building societies operating in the UK are available from the FSA's website. The FSA currently publishes a bespoke list of banks, which is updated on a monthly basis, and a list of building societies is also accessible from its website via a simple search of its online register, which is updated every day. New requirements, in addition to the material published by the FSA, would place an unnecessary burden on the reclaim fund. If the reclaim fund were obliged to recreate or redesign the FSA's lists, it would effectively have to monitor the market, as the regulator currently does, for firms entering and exiting the market, and that is not its function.
	On the amendment, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of naming and shaming institutions that appear on the FSA register but are not participating in the scheme, because some might be eligible to participate but not be in possession of dormant accounts to transfer into the scheme. Banks may be FSA-authorised to accept retail deposits, but may not currently undertake this activity, or they may not have a book going back as far as 15 years. More than 300 banks and building societies are authorised as deposit takers by the FSA. Among them, there may be institutions without dormant accounts. Such a requirement would not be useful for consumers or fair for the individual institutions. Requiring the reclaim fund to publish a more refined list of institutions would be an additional and unreasonable burden on it.
	Before moving on to amendment No. 12, let me clarify the position I outlined on remuneration in response to a question from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). Expenses must be reasonable, as set out in schedule 1, and the reclaim fund will make this transparent. On the point about sanctions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), if the reclaim fund failed to comply with legislation, the Government would have the power to seek an injunction from the court to ensure that that was rectified.
	On amendment No. 12, I am inching towards what the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) had to say. The amendment would require the Treasury to publish its direction-making powers. This provision was set out in the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which did not comment on it in its report. We therefore do not feel that there is any particular reason to include in legislation a requirement that any direction be published. As I have said, although we do not expect to use this power, I am not aware of any likely reasons why, if we were to do so, it should not be made public to the House in the form of a written or oral statement, without having put a requirement in the Bill for it to be published. We could return to this matter in the other place, but I do not think it is a substantive issue, because we do not expect to use this power, and if we were to do so, we would want to be clear about why we were using it and make statements in the usual way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in [Clause 17], page 9, line 31, after 'meeting', insert 'revenue or capital'.
	No. 6, page 9, line 31, after 'of', insert 'existing or new'.
	No. 7, page 9, line 38 , at end insert—
	'(1A) At least three-quarters of the dormant account money for meeting English expenditure distributed in each financial year shall be distributed for the purposes set out in (1)(a) above.'.
	No. 1, in [Clause 18], page 10, line 5, at end insert—
	'(1A) Any order made under this section shall ensure that at least half of the distribution of dormant account money for meeting Welsh expenditure must be made for meeting revenue or capital expenditure on or connected with the provision of existing or new services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people.'.
	No. 2, in [Clause 19], page 10, line 15, at end insert—
	'(1A) Any order made under this section shall ensure that at least half of the distribution of dormant account money for meeting Scottish expenditure must be made for meeting revenue or capital expenditure on or connected with the provision of existing or new services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people.'.
	No. 3, in [Clause 20], page 10, line 25, at end insert—
	'(1A) Any order made under this section shall ensure that at least half of the distribution of dormant account money for meeting Northern Ireland expenditure must be made for meeting revenue or capital expenditure on or connected with the provision of existing or new services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people.'.
	No. 13, in [Schedule 3], page 19, line 13, at end insert—
	'(2A) The strategic plan for England must have regard to the likely level of the funds transferred to the Big Lottery Fund from the Reclaim Fund and shall set out the allocation of these funds between the priorities set out in section 17(1).'.
	No. 14, page 19, line 27 , after '(3)(b)', insert
	'and the priorities for spending set out in section 17(1).'.
	No. 4, page 24, line 26, at end insert—
	 'Estimates
	9A The Big Lottery Fund shall no later than one month before the end of each financial year publish an estimate of the apportionable income which it expects to have available for the following financial year.'.
	No. 15, in [Schedule 3], page 24, line 32 , at end insert 'which shall include—
	(i) the amount distributed in the year in—
	(a) England,(b) Wales,(c) Scotland, and(d) Northern Ireland;
	(ii) the amount of expenses defrayed in the year in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) of section 25;
	(iii) the amount paid to the Consolidated Fund in accordance with subsections (3)(a) and (b) of section 25.'.

Simon Hughes: All the amendments in this group are in my name, except for amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 which were tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). They deal not with how the money gets into the pot, but with how it is distributed and they follow our helpful Second Reading and Committee debates.
	I tabled these amendments to encourage the Government to be more specific about their general commitments. Amendment No. 8 tests the Government on the time scale for implementation. Ministers have been very helpful; indeed, I have been offered a meeting later this month with the Financial Secretary, which I intend to take up to discuss how soon money can be forthcoming, particularly for youth projects, about which I wish to speak in particular. Earlier this year, Ministers indicated that some of the money that they anticipate coming from dormant bank and building society accounts could, so to speak, be advanced against the expectation. Does that offer remain on the table or will we definitely have to wait for money to be collected, identified and transferred to the Big Lottery Fund before it can be distributed?
	Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 seek to probe the Government's intentions about how much of the money in the kitty can go to services for young people and to test the sort of funds and projects that can be linked. I shall come back to that issue in a second.
	Amendment No. 7 identifies a minimum percentage of the total. As colleagues will know, there are three identified projects for England, one of which is youth services. Ministers have been helpful in indicating that they intend that, in England, the majority of the money could go to youth services and I have heard reports that the proportion might be up to four fifths of the total. I would be keen to hear whether that suggestion can be tied down.
	Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 relate to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hesitate to trespass in that area, because Ministers have said that they will leave that entirely to the devolved legislatures. However, I have picked up very positive messages about the keenness of people in Scotland and Wales—I have not tested this in Northern Ireland—to spend the money on youth services there. I want to see whether the Government would be willing to encourage that to happen elsewhere in the devolved Administrations.
	Amendment No. 4 is about Big Lottery Fund procedures, and seeks to ensure that people know in advance what will come down the track in their direction.
	Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker was kind enough to select youth crime in Greater London as the subject for an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. It was a well-attended debate, involving colleagues from both sides of the House. It was very positive. People said that a huge number of very good initiatives in the communities in all the 33 local authorities were doing well, had done well and could do well. The burden of most peoples' song in that debate, and certainly the burden of mine, was that rather than seeking to reinvent the wheel and to obtain money through public processes and the Big Lottery Fund for a new project or a capital project, we should seek to support existing projects and to build them up. Many colleagues, when they talk about different issues to do with the voluntary sector, make the case that the trouble is often that groups can apply for money for a new capital project but cannot necessarily apply for money to continue the revenue spend on a project that is already up and running.
	Two days after the debate in Westminster Hall, and just over the river in the Royal Festival Hall, there was the launch of a campaign by a coalition of organisations, principally in Lewisham, Southwark and Lambeth. It is called, "Enough! Make Youth Violence History" and seeks to bring together organisations that are doing very good work to deter young people from knife crime, gun crime and violence, and to give them positive and alternative role models. The message from that successful event was that some very good organisations work with young people in the front line and that they should be supported and built up.
	One of the aims of the event was to say to the Government that they should recognise what good work those organisations do. Ministers in the Home Office were helpful and supportive. As it happened, they could not attend that evening, but I know that they have been positive towards the initiative. The other message of that evening was that when people ask, "What can I do to help deter people from violence, gun crime and knife crime?", those groups should say, "Come and volunteer with us." Many organisations are looking for volunteers, so it is a matter of matching the corporate sector volunteer or the private individual volunteer with those organisations.
	Given that there is no statutory obligation in England—or anywhere across the UK—to provide youth services, this Bill is the only place in the current legislative programme where campaigns for developing existing youth organisations tie into the Government's programme for being helpful and putting more money in the kitty. That is a welcome proposition.
	Amendment No. 8 would amend clause 16, and would seek to ensure that the amount was prescribed in good time every year for it to be really useful. The proposal in the amendment is that the Government should prescribe the amount by 1 March every year, ahead of the new financial year, so that there is clear notice of what the total amount will be. That will mean that everybody will know in good time what the total sum will be for which people can bid.
	The next few amendments are very clear, and I want to ensure that the Government are also clear that the intention behind the amendments is to put on the face of the Bill the fact that the money could go both to revenue spend and capital projects. I hope that the Government will be helpful and will say, "Yes, there will be no barrier to people bidding for money from the Big Lottery Fund for revenue projects."
	In my constituency, a state-of-the-art youth centre—one of the best in the country—is about to be opened. Ministers have been very helpful and supportive, particularly the Minister for Children, Young People and Families. It is called the Salmon youth centre in Bermondsey, and it is a fantastic state-of-the-art project. We also have other good smaller projects, as we all do in our constituencies. They are not looking for new buildings, but for money to support additional workers.
	Let me give two examples. A project called XLP works across the south London boroughs and takes a double-decker bus out to estates to offer young people positive things to do. However, it does not yet have the personnel to do that all the time. It would like to, but it needs a bit more revenue funding. It goes into schools with a very good show called "Gunz Down", which takes an hour and plays to the third, fourth and fifth years in secondary schools. It could do more if it had more revenue funding.
	Another good youth project, funded by Oasis, runs just over the bridge from us here, effectively, on the Lambeth-Southwark borders. It has a radio project for young people, which teaches them skills in presenting and so on. The project, like the youth clubs, is open certain nights of the week but it cannot open every night because it does not have the funds. There is not much money to fund such youth work. The plea from such groups is, "Please allow us to have the money for revenue not just for capital."
	Amendment No. 6 says, "Please will you confirm, O Government, that we can have the money for existing projects, not just new projects?" I think that that is the case—I have heard nothing to suggest that it is not—but it would be very helpful if that could be confirmed.
	Amendment No. 7 seeks to test how much money the Government envisage will go to the first of the three categories that they have set out. They have set out three purposes. The first is
	"the provision of services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people".
	The second is
	"expenditure on or connected with...the development of individuals' ability to manage their finances, or...the improvement of access to personal financial services".
	That is obviously important. The third is that such payments should be
	"made to a social investment wholesaler."
	There are three identified projects in England. The Government have said that they intend that the bulk of the money will go to youth services. Amendment No. 7 asks whether we should have a bottom line that said that at least three quarters of the funds should go to that cause, whether that is a reasonable line to draw and whether the Government are willing to make that commitment. If not, can we hear from the Minister what the bottom line is intended to be?
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are intended to test whether the Government are willing to at least say that half the money going to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be for youth facilities. I hope that the Government will be encouraging the devolved Administrations even if they are unwilling to be prescriptive. That would be welcome in Scotland and Wales, as I know from all the conversations that I have had. If the Bill is to be seen to have a purpose, a very good purpose across the four countries of the United Kingdom would be to spend the money on youth facilities.
	Amendment No. 4 is a plea that the Big Lottery Fund should publish no later than a month before the end of one financial year an estimate of the money that it expects to distribute in the following year. That is intended to help the planning of the voluntary sector and to help people to know exactly what should be expected. The Big Lottery Fund is well established as an organisation. I am perfectly content—others might be slightly less content—about the fact that it is the distributor. It has the credibility to do that, but the most helpful thing is that people should know in advance how much money will come and how much they can bid for.
	I hope that these amendments are seen to be pertinent and appropriate. They are obviously probing amendments. If the Minister is helpful, I will call off the hounds. If he is really unhelpful, the troops will be summoned. I hope that we can do this in a spirit of consensus and that we will have a positive outcome that will reassure some very good projects.
	This is a welcome Bill. The money will be very well used, and I emphasise that those organisations do not expect to depend entirely on this money or entirely on money that comes from the Government to the Big Lottery Fund. Many of those organisations are very willing to raise their own money, to go to the private sector to raise money and to apply to charities and so on. They see this money as welcome support. The House has recently said that it is united in making it clear that the majority of young people are good citizens. They want to be good citizens, and the more opportunities that we can give them, the better.

Mark Hoban: I shall start by saying a few words about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). He will find, as we found in Committee, that the Government's main priority is expenditure on youth services. That has been a recurrent theme, and it is clear from debates in the House and the other place that that is where the bulk of the money will go. Although he might not get commitments to absolute percentages, he is pushing at an open door. Amendment No. 4 is sensible; people will need some idea of how much money will be available for those causes.
	I want to continue the theme of the distribution of money and to pick up the final spending priority identified for England: the social investment wholesaler. I tabled amendment No. 13 to deal with that, and I shall spend a short time talking about it. It is fair to say that people who work in social enterprise and social investment had expected that the unclaimed assets would be used to help to fund a social investment wholesaler. Certainly, there has been a great deal of debate about that. The Commission on Unclaimed Assets, chaired by Sir Ronald Cohen, considered the amounts that would flow from dormant bank and building society accounts as the way in which a social investment wholesaler could be set up. Subsequent to its report, it did some work in trying to set up the appropriate framework into which moneys could be transferred.
	As I suggested earlier, however, it is clear that the Government's order of priority for spending is very much that set out in the Bill. Spending on youth services comes first, followed by financial inclusion, and the social investment bank comes very much at the bottom of the list. The Minister said in Committee that the social investment bank would receive resources to get off the ground if resources permit. It was clear to me that the amount of money available could be relatively small. That will disappoint the people in that sector who saw this as an opportunity to receive investment in social enterprise. In evidence given to the Treasury Select, it was suggested that about £330 million over five years would be required to set up a social investment wholesaler. At the moment, it is not clear how much money will be available, not just to that cause but to the other two causes. Again, the Minister said that there is still great uncertainty about the quantum of resources available to the Big Lottery Fund. We touched on that on Second Reading and in Committee.
	In amendment No. 13, I ask the Government, when looking at the Big Lottery Fund's pattern of expenditure during the next few years, to recognise that transfers into the BLF are likely to be of a lumpy nature. We expect that, in the first year, significant moneys will be released from banks to the reclaim fund and the BLF. In effect, the money accumulated in dormant accounts over a long period will be released to the BLF in the very early stages of the process. That significant lump sum will create the opportunity for money to be put into a social investment bank, the investment profile of which will be front-loaded. It needs a large injection of capital up front, followed by top-ups at a later stage.
	Clearly, if the Government want to give some money to a social investment bank, recognising the fact that the flow into the fund will mirror the large amount at the outset and that smaller amounts will come every year thereafter, as a new year's worth of dormant bank accounts become available for transfer to the reclaim fund the opportunity might perhaps arise at the start of the process for significant investment in a social investment wholesaler. It is much less likely, as the unclaimed assets process continues, that sufficient money will be available to set up a social investment wholesaler of sufficient magnitude to make a difference to the third sector.
	I ask the Government to think about the flow of funds into the BLF and how it might be used to support a wholesaler. Of course, we must also bear in mind the fact that a social investment wholesaler could use its funds to support initiatives for financial inclusion and youth services, so there could be a flow back to the spending priorities.
	I want to touch briefly on amendment No. 14. I want to ensure that the BLF's consultation on its strategy includes the three causes referred to in the Bill: youth services, financial inclusion and the social investment wholesaler. There seems to be a gap in the consultation process; it should go back to those three causes and look at needs in that context.
	Amendment No. 15 is intended to probe the Government's thinking on the information that will be published by the BLF in its accounts, to ensure transparency about the amounts distributed to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and much more clarity about the expenses defrayed, not only those of the BLF but those that will be reimbursed to the consolidated fund from the BLF. One of the reasons why we tabled that amendment was to ensure clarity about the amounts allocated to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We debated the issue in Committee, where it became apparent that the Barnett formula would be used as the basis for that, but that is not stated in the Bill, as is the Government's custom. Amendment No. 14 would ensure transparency in that respect.
	Concern has been expressed, particularly in the other place and to a lesser extent during our proceedings in Committee, about the cost of the BLF, whether it will ensure that its expenses are proportionate to the amounts that it distributes and whether it will spend that money wisely. As I said in an earlier debate, every pound spent on administration is a pound not available to the good causes.
	In Committee, the Minister argued that we should make sure that we do not spend too little on administration so that the money was targeted at the right places. However, it is important that there is transparency in the accounts of the BLF, or the reclaim fund element of it, about the amount spent. We have to ensure that the BLF knows that people will not lose sight of the amount spent.
	There is another area that needs clarity. The Bill makes provision for the BLF to reimburse expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—and from our discussions in Committee, we know that it will be the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Given the maxim that we need transparency about how money is spent, so we can be sure that we have the best value for money, it is important that we make certain that the amounts repaid to the Secretary of State are published.
	In essence, there are two elements to this group of amendments. First, it allows us to air issues to do with the social investment bank, and to make sure that it does not drop off the end of the list of priorities. If resources permit, perhaps some money will be devoted to it, particularly given that money will have to be allocated up front to ensure that it is viable. Secondly, we must ensure transparency in how the money is spent. That relates to the amounts awarded to the different nations of the United Kingdom, and to ensuring that we do not lose sight of the money spent on expenses.

Jeremy Browne: I rise briefly to echo a few of the themes that have already been touched on, and to ask the Minister for clarification on one or two other matters. First, I should like to mention the point made in the previous contribution about how the Government intend to allocate money between the parts of the United Kingdom. Representations have been made to me by people in Wales, who express concern about the fact that the Barnett formula gives 5.84 per cent. of spending to Wales, whereas the Big Lottery Fund, using a needs-based formula, gives Wales 6.5 per cent. That is not a huge difference, but if we are talking about reasonably significant amounts of money, it is obviously a difference that will interest people in Wales—and, of course, by implication, the other three parts of the United Kingdom, because there is only so much money in the pot, and the more that goes to one part, the less there will be for others.
	It would be useful if the Minister indicated precisely how the allocations will be made. As we discussed in Committee, one could make a case for many different bases. One could, straightforwardly, allocate the funds according to population, or according to some sort of assessment of need. One could even use as a basis the number, or indeed the value, of dormant bank accounts in each part of the United Kingdom. It would be reasonable to have some sense of the basis on which the decision will be made.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) touched on the percentage of money that will go to youth services, as we did in Committee. I suppose the Minister may slightly feel that he is being pulled in different directions, because in Committee we discussed whether the Government ought to seek greater flexibility. At a later date, way beyond the period that we are envisaging—perhaps 20, 30 or 40 years from now—the Government may wish to redirect the spending to a cause that is particularly fashionable or important at the time. Of course, the Bill does not provide for that; the Government would have to introduce new legislation. They may wish to consider that.
	More immediately, a reasonable concern has been expressed about what percentage will go to each of the three causes identified. That is a legitimate point, because if 90 per cent. were to go to youth services, and only 5 per cent. to each of the other two interest areas, there would obviously be a very different impact on youth services than if a third went to each of the interest areas. The Government could do a little better than just to say what the three areas are. I agree with the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), that all the mood music seems to suggest that, for the Government, youth services will be the priority. My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned 75 per cent. of the funding going to the first of the three priorities, youth services. From everything that I have heard, and from debates in which I have participated, my hunch is that that is roughly the sort of percentage allocation that the Government are considering, but the Minister may be able to be more helpful and give the House a steer on what is envisaged.
	My hon. Friend made a reasonable point: there ought not to be a division or a difference made between revenue spending and capital spending. We are all familiar with projects in our constituencies that have got up and running but struggle to sustain themselves, because most of their costs are ongoing revenue costs. That is a particularly relevant consideration in this legislation, because we are expecting a big hit of initial money, as we will be dealing with all the accounts that have been dormant for 15 years or more in the banks and building societies that choose to participate in the scheme. That may afford a perfect opportunity for one-off capital projects. Of course, in all subsequent years, there will only be the money that becomes available in that 12-month period, so in year 2 we will be talking about only those accounts that have, at present, been dormant for between 14 and 15 years, and which will suddenly fall into the dormant category. There may well be an initial opportunity for quite an ambitious programme of capital spending, but the emphasis will move more to revenue spending in subsequent years. The Minister may well not be able to shed further light on the possible way forward, but he may wish to comment on the subject when he replies.
	I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that there is no particular reason why we should seek to distinguish between existing and new projects. Sometimes, sustaining an existing project is as valuable, if not more valuable, than trying to come up with a new initiative, even though it is less headline-capturing; people are always seduced by the new, rather than by a reiteration of what has already been done. However, that does not necessarily mean that new projects have greater merit.
	Finally, and again picking up a point made by my hon. Friend, we are in a slightly strange position, as we are not able—and do not wish—to direct the devolved Administrations, but we nevertheless know that people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, inasmuch as they are following the proceedings of the Bill, expect that youth facilities in those countries will benefit from the Bill's passing into law. It is extremely unlikely, but somebody in the Scottish borders could find out that large amounts of money—75 or 80 per cent. of it—were going to youth projects in Northumberland, while the Scottish Administration decided to spend nothing on youth projects at all, and allocated the money to something completely different. People in the Scottish borders would say, "Wait a second; what about all the youth facilities being made available in Northumberland? We expected to have extra youth facilities across the border in Scotland."
	We are not in a position to direct the devolved Administrations, and as I say, it is not our wish or intention to do so, but it might be interesting if the Minister gave an indication of his feel for the way in which the Administrations and devolved Parliaments are looking at the issue. Perhaps he can say whether he feels that, in consultation with them, it would be appropriate to announce that extra youth facilities would be made available across the United Kingdom, even if the percentage split was left to the discretion of those with responsibility for the matter.
	The amendments are useful because they allow us to discuss the point of greatest interest to our constituents, which is who will get the money, and what sort of schemes will benefit. I realise that some flexibility is appropriate, but it would be helpful and interesting if the Minister shed further light on the subject.

Ian Pearson: We would always seek to act in as good time as we could in such matters.
	Amendment No. 5 seeks to clarify that English expenditure on youth can be revenue or capital. I understand its probing nature and would simply argue that it is unnecessary because clause 17 is wide enough to enable the BLF to direct resources to either revenue or capital spending without the need for the clarification or qualification proposed.
	Our ambition is for all young people to have access to high quality, attractive and safe places to go. These should offer a wide range of exciting positive activities to support young people to reach their full potential, but also to help improve relations between young people and the wider community. We therefore intend for unclaimed assets in England to be invested in new and improved youth facilities in every constituency, allowing ever more young people to participate and to benefit. Our vision is for unclaimed assets funding that is primarily intended to support investment in youth facilities, not to meet ongoing costs. We recognise, however, that some time-limited resource funding may help to ensure the viability of capital projects—for example, to support project management and delivery costs. I anticipate that, where appropriate, the spending directions may enable such resource spending, and we are clear that, as drafted, the legislation allows us to do so. I hope that that gives hon. Members a clear indication both of our thinking in that area, and of why we think that amendment No. 5 would be unnecessary.
	Amendment No. 6 would spell out that spending under the English youth provision be spent on either new or existing facilities, services or opportunities. Again, we agree with the thinking behind clause 17 but argue that the amendment would not be necessary, because the clause is already drafted widely enough. It is important to add that a demonstration of financial sustainability will be the key to the Big Lottery Fund releasing dormant accounts for youth projects, just as it currently scrutinises the viability of bids under its lottery and non-lottery programmes. So, we want the money to be genuinely additional, as I have tried to say. We had debates in Committee about the meaning of additionality, and we see it as being primarily capital-based, but allowing for some time-limited resource funding. We want to ensure that the projects that the Big Lottery Fund supports, using dormant accounts money, are sustainable because they take into account the long-term funding requirements on the revenue side, which could be met from other sources.

Simon Hughes: I understand why the Minister has been very, very careful on that amendment, in which I sought to push him on a percentage, but are my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and all of us right in thinking that, in England, the Government intend the majority of the funds at any one time to be used for the first intention, youth services and facilities, rather than for either or both of the other two priorities? Is that the clear policy intention?

Ian Pearson: The Government's clear policy intention has always been that youth spending in England should be the priority, but there are other considerations, particularly with regard to the build up of the fund, as I mentioned earlier. If the Government were minded to support and take forward the social investment wholesaler, it might need up-front capitalisation, but over time we have been very clear that youth funding is very much the priority.
	I appreciate that amendments Nos. 1 to 3 are probing ones, but one principle of the scheme is that it is rightly and properly the responsibility of the devolved Administrations to determine their own spending areas within their respective countries, so that they identify priorities that best reflect the needs of their communities. That was spelt out in the Treasury's May 2007 consultation, which also recognised that the priorities in those countries may change over time. Although the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey invites us to be prescriptive, I must reject his invitation and say that, in the spirit of devolution, we believe it right to ensure that the devolved Administrations be free to determine their own spending areas. On the spending formula, as we have said in Committee and on previous occasions, the Barnett formula is the most appropriate way of allocating funds. We discussed the matter with the devolved Administrations, and they agree with the approach, so I invite hon. Members to reject amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
	Amendment No. 13 would require the BLF to set out in its strategic plan for England how it has regard to the likely levels of funds that it will receive from the reclaim fund. I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Fareham, when discussing the way in which the reclaim fund would be capitalised through dormant accounts, that it gives us an opportunity to consider the social investment wholesaler, so I assure him that it will not be forgotten. It was one of his key points.
	Amendment No. 14 would require the BLF, when consulting to identify spending needs while drawing up the strategic plan, to take into account the priorities for the three spending areas for England. Again, that would be unnecessary, because the identification of the overall needs for England is, in essence, the delivery of the requirements of the spending direction, and they set out the priority to be accorded to each spending area. That brings me on to talk about drawing up the strategic plan on the Secretary of State's instruction, and why it has been included in the Bill. We are concerned to ensure that we enable the BLF to take a strategic approach to distribute funding in England within the parameters of the spending directions. It is right that, within the general framework for directions, on which we will insist, the BLF has responsibility for drawing up its strategic plan, and that, as part of the plan, it gives advance notice to voluntary organisations of its funding priorities in the directions.

Mark Hoban: The Minister rightly said that we dealt with the debate on Report as we did with the debates in Committee—by setting out from the outset to be constructive and to take the opportunity to understand and to challenge the Government's intentions. I think that the Bill is better as a consequence.
	We are at the "end of the beginning" stage of this legislation. The Committee stage did not take long, but it took some time for the Bill, having received its First Reading in this House in February, to get to its Second Reading when we returned after the summer recess. Since then, we have dealt with it very quickly to get to this point.
	There are four key aspects. First, we need to ensure proper protection for consumers so that they know that if money is transferred from their account to the reclaim fund, there is recourse for them. As a preparatory step, banks, building societies and National Savings & Investments have done as much work as possible to be able to unite customers with their money. The second important feature is the establishment of the reclaim fund and its functions. We have debated the reclaim fund and how we are going to monitor the way in which it works in practice. The third key area, which we discussed under the penultimate group of amendments, concerns the role that the Big Lottery Fund will undertake and how it will set out its strategy. The fourth key area is the next stage of the process, or the next challenge—determining how the money will be spent in practice on the ground. This presents a huge opportunity to find some innovative and exciting projects that can benefit from dormant accounts. We had a debate about the initial release of money from bank accounts to the Big Lottery Fund. It is vital that the Big Lottery Fund plans this process well. If it gets it right, that can make a significant difference to communities across the country. It will need to work hard to ensure that the opportunity is maximised and that the money is used effectively.
	The Bill will leave this place slightly weaker than when it arrived. The Government have weakened some of the aspects of parliamentary scrutiny that were inserted in the other place. However, I will be gracious in accepting that new clause 3 provides some scrutiny. It may not be as robust and the review not as frequent as Opposition Members wanted, but it ensures that the functioning of the scheme will be reviewed. One of the features of the discussions throughout all the Bill's stages has been the importance of ensuring that the scheme works properly.

Martyn Jones: I congratulate the Minister on the passage of the Bill and on the addition on Report of a review process. The Bill will mean more money flowing back into the hands of the public and important charities. Many of us had hoped for a much tighter check on the UK banking system and a mandatory scheme. I expressed my cynicism about the banking system and bankers in general in Committee and at other stages of the Bill's consideration.
	I remind the House that in 2004, I asked the banks how much they had in dormant bank accounts. Six of them replied, saying that they had £419 million, while 16 did not—or would not—reply. Given that they are now talking about £250 million, there is a bit of a discrepancy, and I would like to know what has happened to that money. I let the Minister off too lightly in Committee when I said it was perhaps the definition of 10 extra years. On a back-of-the-envelope calculation, I do not think that that is true because the banks had £400 million four years ago, and they have been going for perhaps 50 to 100 years in this country. I think that there is more money, and I hope that it will show up. I wait with interest to see which banks comply with the demands of the voluntary scheme. That is why I am grateful for the review procedure, which should give us some indication of the performance of the voluntary scheme at an early stage.
	I hope for a proportionate distribution of the moneys across the regions of the UK. The money could provide much-needed funding for community projects to help the many volunteers and organisations throughout Britain who work with young people every day. I look to the future of other dormant asset schemes, such as insurance funds, share certificates and gambling debts. I hope to work with the Treasury on legislation in those areas in the near future. The Bill is a good start, and I am proud to have had some small influence on it going on to the statute book.

Jeremy Browne: Most legislation takes several months to pass through all the stages in both Houses, and in the time that we have talked about dormant accounts, the banking sector has changed beyond all recognition and we now have a rather large number of semi-dormant banks. Nevertheless, the legislation is important in its own right, and it is good that it was studied in such detail in both Houses.
	I pay tribute to those in the other place for getting the ball rolling. It is exactly the type of Bill that lends itself well to beginning in the other place because of the range of expertise available there and the fact that it is traditionally less partisan in its outlook than this Chamber. None the less, the deliberations we had in this Chamber and in Committee have been useful, and I congratulate the Minister on his constructive outlook and on seeking to be more accommodating than some Ministers have been on other occasions with regard to the provisions and proposals advanced by Members of other political parties and by those on their own Back Benches.
	I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) in that I would have preferred some of the amendments made to the Bill in the other place to have remained, rather than seeing them removed in Committee, but the Bill has nevertheless been scrutinised in some detail, and my party, along with all other parties welcome it. It is well-designed legislation that will, I hope, achieve the objective we all share.
	I echo the point made by other hon. Members that we should not forget that the money in question belongs to private individuals. They have chosen not to touch it, either wittingly or unwittingly for a long period of time, but I do not want the state to regard it as its role to confiscate the money of private individuals. It was important that we made sure that there was detailed consideration of the provisions for reuniting people with their funds, and I am pleased that the Minister and others took those issues seriously. I hope that the review we have agreed on this evening ensures that, as it becomes a reality across the country, any problems in the legislation will be ironed out.
	Finally, the Bill's objectives are entirely laudable, and all of us—looking around the Chamber, I see people from urban, inner-city constituencies and those who represent rural areas in far-flung parts of the country—see a need in our constituencies to ensure that young people are engaged by projects that stimulate them and that ensure that they can play a full role in society. I know that the Bill envisages money being spent in different areas, but there is a consensus that the main thrust of the legislation will enable more provision to be made for youth facilities. Anyone who plays an active role as a constituency MP will see the benefits of that.
	I am keen that the money should be additional. I know that it is hard to define in legislation what constitutes additionality, but everyone would feel that the legislation had not achieved its objectives if the money merely displaced projects already funded by the Government. Our deliberations have been positive and constructive. I hope that the scheme that is put in place is effective and that, sooner rather than later, our constituents will see the benefits of our deliberations.

Charles Walker: I would like to say how much I enjoyed serving on the Committee that considered the Bill. I spoke on Second Reading, I was on the Committee, and I am making a brief debut on Third Reading.
	The amounts of individuals' money we are talking about are probably quite small because people tend not to forget large amounts of money lying in bank accounts. I know that I have a couple of bank accounts—with the Chelsea building society and Barclays bank—from 20 years ago, with probably about £10 in each, and I am more than happy for that money to be put towards good causes. Although the amounts we are talking about are small in each individual dormant account—not in all, but in most—when we add them up, as the Minister did when he educated the House, we find that about £500 million of money is available to put towards good causes. Of course, the money does not belong to banks—they are its custodians. It belongs to people who have perhaps died or forgotten that it is there. If they or their executors do not intend reclaiming it, I see no harm in putting it towards good causes. It is a good and noble thing to give that money to good causes—alleviating poverty and helping young people get a foothold in life and a chance to make something of themselves.
	I am pleased that there will be a review in three years of the reclaim funds' performance and the limited company in charge of distributing the money. That review may provide an opportunity to examine the performance of the Big Lottery Fund and perhaps to tweak things around the margins. I know that I have tried the Economic Secretary's patience—I will not try yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—but if it is decided in three years that charity should get perhaps 5 per cent. of that money, it would be no bad thing.
	In responding to a point that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made, the Economic Secretary referred to an ambitious timetable of implementation. We have waited so long for the Bill that he can afford to be a little cautious. Let us ensure that we get it right: if it is not ready to launch by the middle of next year, I do not believe that anyone would be too critical if we delayed it by two or three months. It is important to get it right the first time so that it carries the public's confidence. If the Economic Secretary misses a June, July or August launch, he will receive no criticism from me.

Simon Hughes: I was trying to steer close to the sort of thing that you would accept on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall steer closer to the Bill's central point.
	It is amazing to relate, but if one is very rich, one probably has assets that are hidden away and that one does not think about. The Bill rightly provides that, though the moneys are private, if they have been forgotten and unused, there should be a facility to use them, even though they can be reclaimed. I want the fact that the Government have followed that route in relation to money in accounts to encourage them to be equally purposeful about other assets that are held privately, for example, land on brownfield sites or empty housing. I shall not go further, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply remind the Government that they can be positive in a similar way about other matters.

Simon Hughes: Absolutely not.
	My specific point, which is central to the Bill, is to do with our having a bad year in Britain for violent youth crime. London has been especially afflicted, with more than 20 teenagers killed.

Simon Hughes: My point is absolutely about the Bill's content, if you will bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill's priority is for money to be spent on facilities for young people. The measure is important because it will allow the money to be used to deal with one of the major problems that has afflicted London and the rest of the country—the violence caused to and by young people. Many people will put the money that may become available—whatever the amount—to good use because they know the ways in which to prevent young people from going astray and being violent to one another.
	The Government should view the Bill not only as social or financial policy but as part of the immediate response to a problem that is endemic in all our communities. Out there, people are sick to death of thinking that youth violence cannot be tackled in our society. The Bill is a small mechanism for dealing with that, but it could be important. It is totemic about opportunities: a little bit of resource can turn around significant numbers of people in our community. An important consequence of the Bill is more resources for all our constituencies, counties and regions, which will allow those who work to make youth violence history to feel more encouraged and better able to do their job. The Bill will therefore be welcome in my part of the world and this city.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this short Adjournment debate on a subject of huge importance to not only my constituency but a considerably greater area. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), to his place. I appreciate that he is deputising for a colleague who has overall responsibility and sits in another place. He is possibly the fifth or sixth roads Minister that I have faced in my seven years in the House in my quest to try to get the road completed. It may therefore be helpful to him if I sketch out a little local detail from my point of view as a constituency Member of Parliament. I appreciate that his officials will have briefed him well about some of the wider issues.
	There is a long history of trying to get a bypass for Dunstable, as the A5-M1 link is better known locally. The first record that I have found dates back to 1934. The A5, which goes through the middle of Dunstable, carries approximately 22,000 vehicles a day. Many are heavy goods vehicles, which do not want to deliver to businesses in Dunstable or take finished products out of Dunstable, but are simply trying to get through the town to go elsewhere. Consequently, many people who want to shop or do business in Dunstable are prevented from doing so by the amount of excess traffic that goes through the town and wants to be elsewhere.
	Often, the M1 is diverted to the M5 when there are blockages. The M1 is currently being widened but, according to the Highways Agency, we are officially a relief road for the M1, and that causes dread for many of my local schools. People look out of the window at 3 o'clock many afternoons and realise that they cannot get their children—perhaps special needs children—home on local authority transport and so on.
	We therefore face huge difficulties locally, not least an increasingly difficult economic environment, with unemployment in my constituency having unfortunately risen by 23 per cent. in the year till August. Since then, I know of three local businesses that have, sadly, closed.
	The Minister knows that the Government have significant ambitions for housing and business growth in my area. Indeed, they wish to build some 43,000 extra houses by 2031. That objective cannot be fulfilled without building the road. The view of many local people is that, given the bypasses that they have seen elsewhere around the country—and, indeed, in the county of Bedfordshire—the bypass is required for the area's current needs, not only for future growth. It is the view of many local authority officers in my area, as well as the authorities themselves, that the Highways Agency has been stalling development in the area, through a lack of commitment to deciding either how the M1 is to be widened north of junction 10 or what the precise form of the A5-M1 link should be.
	The then Secretary of State made an announcement to the House on 9 July 2003, starting at column 1177 of the  Official Report, that the Dunstable northern bypass—the A5-M1 link—would be built. That was originally supposed to be completed by 2010, but it is currently not scheduled for completion until around 2015 or perhaps even later. The then Secretary of State, now Chancellor, announced the Government's decision to build that vital bypass, telling the House:
	"In the past five years, there have been long and detailed studies, but the time has now come when we need to get on and implement them".—[ Official Report, 9 July 2003; Vol. 403, c. 1195.]
	My constituents would have very much agreed with those sentiments, but according to the Government's projections, we are now looking at a 12-year delay between the announcement that the road would be built, which was made at the Dispatch Box in July 2003, and the current scheduled completion date. That is an unacceptably long time. Perhaps the Department should think about having a maximum period between the announcement that a road is to be built and when it is actually completed.
	More recently, on 6 July 2006, a later Secretary of State made a written statement to the House about the regional funding allocations for transport schemes. He referred in that statement to a letter to the chair of the East of England regional assembly, in which, referring to the A5-M1 link, he had stated:
	"we would therefore like that scheme to be considered for an earlier start than you have proposed if there is any slippage in other schemes in your region."
	As far as I am aware, that policy, enunciated by the then Secretary of State for Transport, has not been changed by any Minister or official in the Department, but I would be grateful for confirmation that that is the case.
	It was therefore with great alarm that many of my local councillors and council officers learned in July, at a meeting in Dunstable in which I was involved, that the East of England regional assembly had proposed the A11 improvements as one of the two priority schemes to go forward with the A5-M1 link, should any extra money become available in the region. I understand that the Highways Agency had raised two issues, which had not been fully discussed with the local authority officers concerned.
	Let me say in passing that I hope the Minister will encourage the Highways Agency to discuss such issues fully with the knowledgeable and expert officers in local authorities who are tasked with such matters before they are announced at a regional planning panel. I will be meeting representatives of the Highways Agency in London with many of my local officers on 24 November to take such matters forward.
	Of the two reasons why the A5-M1 link could not be brought forward as the priority scheme, as a previous Secretary of State had said in 2006 that it would be, the first, and I gather the most significant, was an air quality issue. I understand that the Highways Agency had identified some
	"relatively recent European air quality compliance complications".
	I would not wish anyone to live with any pollution, but I understand that the recommendation is that pollution should not exceed a limit of 40 micrograms of nitrogen dioxide per cubic metre of air. For a small number of houses near junction 11, it was expected that the limit would be breached, with the level rising to around 42 to 43 micrograms per cubic metre when the new bypass was built.
	I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the annual mean level of nitrogen dioxide in the centre of Dunstable is around 68 micrograms per cubic metre, with hourly peaks of up to 260 micrograms in the rush hour. It seems pretty strange that a European directive is prepared to subject my constituents—families who live in the centre of Dunstable—to far higher levels of pollution between now and 2016 than to a possible, much smaller breach of the guidelines in the run-up to 2016.
	I pay tribute to Councillor Tom Nicols of South Bedfordshire district council, who went to Brussels last month and discussed the European directive with German and Dutch Transport Ministers who were in the European Parliament. My understanding from conversations with him is that there is flexibility in such directives. If the Department went back to Europe and said, "It's a slight breach, which we're working to avoid in the run-up to 2016, versus much higher levels of pollution, which would be avoided if we could build this road in Dunstable sooner," he might find that European officials would be more understanding about reducing overall levels of pollution. Again, I commend Councillor Tom Nicols for going the extra mile in trying to resolve the issue.
	We have information that perhaps only five houses will be affected by any potential breach in the run-up to 2016, but will the Minister confirm that? If that is the case, I wonder whether the Highways Agency already owns those houses and whether they are already blighted because of the possible M1 road widening.
	That brings me to the second issue that was raised with the East of England regional assembly as a reason why the A5-M1 link could apparently not be prioritised, as the previous Secretary of State had said it should be. The reason is that no decision has been made on whether the M1 is to be widened or whether there is to be hard-shoulder running, which I understand the Department terms active traffic management. Another previous Secretary of State announced in March that large sections of the M1 that are awaiting improvements could benefit from hard-shoulder running, but to date we have had no firm decision.
	I gather that the lack of a decision was also used to put a spanner in the works, as we see it, so that the East of England regional planning panel did not give the full green light, which we so desperately need to get the road back on track. Will the Department be announcing a decision on the widening of the M1 next month? My information is that that is possible, and confirmation of that would be helpful. If we can get this issue sorted out, either by building an extra lane or using the hard shoulder, we can then plan to put in junction 11a.
	I turn next to the escalating cost of building this road. The Minister, like every other Member of the House, knows that public money is precious money and that, sadly, there is never enough of it to go round. I am sure he will be alarmed, therefore, to learn that, when this road was first proposed and the Highways Agency went out for contracts in September 2005, it was going to cost £48 million, yet by February 2007 the cost had gone up to £124.3 million, and by July this year it had reached £142 million. By my calculations, that is an almost 300 per cent. increase in under three years, while inflation was running at up to about 4 per cent. as far as the rest of the economy was concerned. That is a virtually Zimbabwean level of inflation. Where is the value to the public purse? Are the Government being held to ransom by a small group of large road builders? Do we need to look at this, as a country, to ensure that the Minister and I are getting value for our taxpayer dollar when building these roads? If the costs are going to get higher and higher, the Department will obviously be able to build fewer roads. We all understand that. I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could say something about the costs.
	Another thorny issue that has not been fully resolved is whether the new junction 11a, which will obviously join the M1 between junctions 11 and 12, will be built at the same time as the M1 is widened, if the decision to widen it is taken, or whether it will have to be built later. As far as I am aware, no hard decision has been taken on this. Answers that I have had to parliamentary questions suggest that, were the Department to widen the M1, and then have to come back at a later date—because the Dunstable northern bypass scheme had not been agreed—and rip up the newly widened M1 in order to put in the new junction, it would cost the taxpayer an extra £12 million or so. Local people—and, indeed, taxpayers all over the country—would not understand or forgive the Government if they wasted that much public money, when a little bit of co-ordination could result in implementing the two schemes at the same time and putting in the junction at the same time as widening the M1 or sorting out the hard-shoulder running measures. Saving £12 million in that way would clearly be sensible.
	I want to clarify what the decision of the regional planning panel of the East of England regional assembly meant in the minute of 30 September, which stated that it was resolved that
	"the A5-M1 link should be treated as a de facto committed scheme...on the assumption that the reasons for the scheme being unable to be accelerated at this time would shortly be resolved".
	I think that those words were meant to be of comfort to people like me, who will be on the Minister's back for as long as he is in this position on this issue, to my local councillors and to the local people. We are grateful for any words of comfort, but I have a couple of questions in relation to that statement. It includes the words:
	" on the assumption that the reasons for the scheme being unable to be accelerated at this time would shortly be resolved".
	How soon is "shortly" in relation to the air quality management issues and the M1 widening issues? What progress has been made since the end of September? Finally, I want to ask whether the A5-M1 link is a suitable candidate for regional infrastructure fund investment to help to plug the funding gap.
	Last week, in an effort to be helpful, I faxed a number of the questions that I intended to raise in this debate to the Minister's officials—I am not playing party politics with this debate; this is far too important an issue—and I hope that that was helpful to him. My intention was to have as constructive and helpful a debate as possible. He will be aware that his response will be read carefully by people locally, because this is such an important issue. I would be grateful if he could give me as many answers as possible, but if I have raised any extra questions to which he is understandably unable to give me answers now, I would be extremely grateful if he could ask his officials to look at the record of the debate afterwards, and to write to me.

Paul Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate and providing a further opportunity for us to discuss what I accept is a very important issue—not only for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in respect of the A5-M1 link road, but for the wider area. I thank the hon. Gentleman for contacting my officials to run through some of the issues that he wanted to raise.
	Let me make a few points about the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. The Highways Agency does not view the link road per se only as a relief road for the M1, but when incidents close the M1, alternative routes obviously have to be found. We all hope that the number of such incidents will be few and far between. I do not believe that the Highways Agency is stalling on its commitment; indeed, it would not be fair to say that any of the parties are stalling rather than recognising the importance of the issue. I hope to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. I know that he has been assiduous in raising these issues in numerous meetings with my ministerial colleagues—I believe he said that I was the seventh—including the Prime Minister in May last year.
	The A5-M1 link forms part of the recommended strategy of the London-south midlands multi-modal study, which clearly demonstrates its wider importance. The scheme entered the Highways Agency's targeted programme of improvements in July 2003 and it has been promoted to address traffic congestion on the A505 and the A5 in the centre of Dunstable, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The A5 is generally straight in Bedfordshire as it follows the line of Watling street—the old Roman road. It is part of the core trunk road network, linking London and the south midlands. The A505, the A5 and the Leighton to Linslade bypass also form an important strategic east-west county route.
	As a result of being part of those key transport links, which facilitate the movement of large volumes of traffic, parts of the A5 become heavily congested, particularly Dunstable High street and the urban areas along the London road. These sections of the A5 and the A505 run through an urban environment, so their design has to consider the need to maintain pedestrian safety and is bound by the physical constraints of a built-up urban environment, both of which contribute to the congestion currently experienced. Local improvements to the A5 north of Dunstable have been made over the years, but south of the Leighton-Linslade bypass junction, the road is bounded by urban development, again limiting opportunities for improvement.
	In order to resolve those issues, the Highways Agency proposes a 4.5 km long two-lane dual carriageway from the A5, just north of the Leighton-Linslade bypass roundabout to the new junction 11a on the M1 north of Luton. I will say more about that later in my speech. By offering an alternative high-standard direct link to the motorway, the proposed A5-M1 link road would act as a northern bypass for Dunstable and satisfy part of the county's outer relief strategy for the Luton and Dunstable area.
	The scheme is expected to reduce the number of through-Dunstable trips by between 8 and 24 per cent. The highly variable journey times measured on the A5 between the A4012 junction in the north and the M1 junction 9 in the south would also improve. Along this 17.2 km section of road, peak journey times are predicted to reduce from the current average of 51 minutes to nearer 20 to 30 minutes, which is near the average off-peak journey time.
	In addition to easing congestion in Dunstable, the scheme aims to reduce traffic through the villages of Houghton Regis, Wingfield, Tebworth and Toddington. The scheme is also expected to improve road safety and the overall quality of life for residents and shoppers. As a result, it is also expected to deliver benefits to the region's overall economy.
	In September 2005, the Highways Agency appointed a contractor under its early contractor involvement initiative to take the A5-M1 link through the statutory process and the construction phases. Also during September 2005, the Highways Agency held a public consultation that attracted more than 1,200 people. The preferred northern route was announced on 23 February 2007. The scheme was subsequently developed and a public information exhibition was held in October last year. To date, more than 100 written responses have been received from individuals, elected bodies and other groups. That feedback was taken into account in the recent work to prepare the draft orders.
	The hon. Gentleman will also know that, following the spending review of 2004, the Government announced that routes on the strategic road network would now fall into two categories: those that are of national importance, mainly major motorways such as the M1 and the M25, and those that are predominantly of regional importance. On the basis of those criteria, the A5-M1 link has been classified as a route of regional importance.
	Although decisions on all schemes and funding commitments remain with the Secretary of State for Transport, in 2005 the regions gave us advice on priorities for major transport schemes. They were asked to work within indicative regional funding allocations, and to include in their advice the priority that they attached to Highways Agency schemes on routes of regional importance such as the one that we are discussing. The Department received the East of England region's advice on its priorities in January 2006, and I am aware from that advice that the region considers the A5-M1 link scheme to be a priority because of its contribution to a number of economic and transport objectives, including improvement of east-west transport links and the provision of better regional access to the strategic road network. The region is considering the scheme as part of its review of future priorities. We have asked regions to provide their updated advice by February 2009.
	In view of the scheme's important contribution to regional objectives, I expect the region to continue to regard it as a high priority. It is currently included in the south Bedfordshire local plan, and is recognised as being part of the infrastructure needed to support the development north of Dunstable. That includes potential growth areas for housing, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the new commercial developments outlined in the Milton Keynes and south midlands sub-regional strategy.
	In order to support the development plans, consideration has been given to the nature of the junctions built as part of the scheme. The A5-M1 link proposals include a roundabout where the A5120 Bedford road would cross the new route, allowing local users to join the M1 via the link road. That junction was designed to facilitate improvement in due course, given the anticipated north Dunstable and Houghton Regis developments.
	The scheme also includes a new junction with the M1, named junction 11a. The location and arrangement of junction 11a was planned to support the county's outer relief strategy by allowing for a connection with the proposed Luton northern bypass. It was also designed to allow for a local road connection that joins the A5-M1 link at its eastern end. Current traffic projections predict that allowing local road access at the junction is not likely to have a significantly detrimental impact on strategic traffic travelling on the M1.
	Let me answer another of the hon. Gentleman's questions by saying that I am assured that the proposed junction 11a could be built concurrently with the proposed improvements to the M1 between junctions 10 and 13. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, that has the potential to yield significant cost savings and reduce the adverse impact of construction works on traffic on the M1. It is, of course, subject to the satisfactory conduct of the statutory process and the availability of funding. The scheme was designed to provide a number of dedicated routes and safe crossings for vulnerable non-motorised users, those enjoying recreational activities, and landowners with businesses in the area.
	The hon. Gentleman noted that the impact on air quality was likely to be a significant issue. By providing an alternative link to the M1 the scheme will increase traffic volumes on the M1, which could increase net exhaust emissions. That has the potential to affect air quality, especially in the Luton air quality management area.
	The Department is working actively with other agencies to understand the impact that the A5-M1 scheme is likely to have on air quality, and to resolve that challenge in the light of our obligations under EU air quality rules. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments about the effect on parts of Dunstable in comparison with the possible effect on a smaller number of properties, but, according to our requirements, any new schemes cannot make any area worse in terms of air quality.

Paul Clark: I have said that our officials are having dialogues with relevant personnel, including opposite numbers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments on European members. I believe discussions on the air quality issue are moving forward quickly, however, and that it can be resolved.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the timetable for delivery of the A5-M1 link. That is partly dependent on other road schemes, in particular the proposed capacity improvements to the M1 between junctions 10 and 13, because capacity improvements on the M1 are required to handle the additional traffic that the A5-M1 link scheme would feed on to the motorway. Without the M1 capacity improvements, building the A5-M1 link would create additional congestion problems on the M1, and would probably lead to the new piece of road the hon. Gentleman talks about becoming a car park.
	In 2008, the public inquiry for the M1 was postponed while further investigations were carried out into possible alternatives for delivering capacity improvement. This followed a successful feasibility study into advanced motorway signalling and traffic management, including the use of the hard shoulder as a running lane on the M42. The Department is currently evaluating the potential for the use of hard-shoulder running on this stretch of the M1, which could be an alternative to full-scale widening. While that may appear to delay the programme, it is right that we look for value for money and that we spend it on meeting congestion issues. Also, while there may be a delay in decision making at this stage, if the hard shoulder were to be used instead of the M1 being widened, the construction time would be less, and I have already given a commitment that plans will be worked up in such a way that junction 11a can be built in either scenario.
	The review of the M1 scheme has implications for the A5-M1 link. This is because the decision on the nature of the capacity improvements on the M1 has the potential to affect the design of the A5-M1, particularly where the two schemes connect, and, therefore, the nature of the orders required. We hope to be in a position to reach a decision on the preferred option for the M1 scheme as soon as possible in 2009. Ministers are likely to receive advice in the run-up to Christmas; that may be why the hon. Gentleman referred to there being a decision very shortly. Once a decision has been reached on the M1, we will be in a position to confirm the proposed way forward for the A5-M1 link.
	In its advice to the Department in January 2006, the East of England regional assembly proposed a timetable that included a construction start date in 2013-14. This date remains possible regardless of the outcome of the M1 review. I also understand that there is a desire in the region to see if implementation of the scheme can be brought forward. This possibility is, of course, dependent on the region's funding priorities, the potential effect on air quality of earlier road opening, and the M1 timeline. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to offer a firm delivery timetable for the A5-M1 link at this stage. However, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman and other stakeholders wish this to be resolved as soon as possible.
	On the hon. Gentleman's later points about the Highways Agency and dialogue between partners, I can assure him that, while I am in this job, I will encourage all partners to have proper dialogue, whichever stakeholders they represent. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we, along with him and other stakeholders, see this as an important scheme and that we will do all we can to bring it to an early conclusion.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Nine o'clock.